Re: AT_MTIME_DELAY not working?

[Zack Weinberg]

On Fri, Dec 22, 2023, at 10:08 AM, Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2023-12-22 09:28, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023, at 10:07 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> [...]
>>> I suggest revising AT_MTIME_DELAY to actually create two files and
>>> loop touching one of them until the timestamps differ.
>> 
>> This won’t work, because whether *test* thinks two timestamps differ
>> may be different from whether *autom4te* thinks two timestamps differ
>> (due to the whole mess with Time::HiRes not necessarily being
>> available, timestamps getting rounded to the nearest IEEE double,
>> etc).  Also, test -nt isn’t portable, we’d have to do the same
>> mess with ls -t that’s in the code setting at_ts_resolution.
>
> Since for the purpose of testing autom4te behaviour one should be able
> to assume autom4te is available, a solution for this issue would be to
> simply add a mechanism to autom4te (or find a creative way to do it
> with existing autom4te) which compares two file timestamps, and use
> that in the loop.

Oh, that's a good idea.  I'm not going to do it for 2.72 but I have filed
https://savannah.gnu.org/support/index.php?110989 so I don't forget about it.

zw